Layer 457 . . . No Mandate, Supporting the Protests, Waltz With Bashir, and Woody Guthrie

.
I like this comment from CiF:

mwhite


Why do the protesters deserve support? Firstly because the Conservatives have no mandate for their policies, secondly because they were elected by the votes of only 25% of the electorate, and thirdly because of the 20 big, fat lies they have been peddling for the last 18 months:




Lie 1: Three days before the election, David Cameron: "Any cabinet minister … who comes to me and says 'Here are my plans' and they involve frontline reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again".


Lie 2: A month before the election, David Cameron: "Our plans involve cutting wasteful spending … our plans don't involve an increase in VAT."


Lie 3: The coalition agreement: "We will stop top-down reorganisations of the NHS."


Lie 4: The coalition agreement: “We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms."


Lie 5: Two months before the election, from David Cameron: "I wouldn't change child benefit, I wouldn't means test it. I don't think that's a good idea."


Lie 6: Michael Gove, just before the election: "Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping EMA. I have never said this. We won't."


Lie7: Liam Fox: "a bigger army for a safer Britain", but it now loses 7,000 soldiers.


Lie 8: In October 2009 George Osborne said: “..........retail banks should stop paying out significant cash bonuses.” A year later, he opposed an updated EU Capital Requirement Directive intended to limit them.


Lie 9: David Cameron: "Yes, we back Sure Start. It's a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this." Yet the government’s Early Intervention Grant means a reduction of £1.4 billion in the amount given to early intervention programmes. As a result, 250 will shut and the rest will suffer cuts in the services they offer.


Lies 10-16: No cuts in tax credits for families with an income of less than £50,000; prison for anyone carrying a knife; no cuts to the navy; keeping the child trust fund for the poorest third of families; no hospital closures; 3000 more midwives; a two-year council tax freeze.


Lie 17: “We cannot afford our bloated public sector workforce.” Yet ONS figures show that average annual public sector employment as a proportion of the UK workforce was 21% in 2010. When Thatcher resigned in 1992, 23% of the work force was employed in the public sector. Compare this with other European countries: France 25%, Holland 22%, Denmark 30%, Sweden 28%, Norway 40%, Finland 27%. 


Lie 18: Although Osborne has called the PFI model “failed and discredited”, the private sector is due to spend some £16.2bn under PFI deals signed between 2010 and 2012 according to the OBR – and last June the Treasury approved several new PFI projects. 


Lie 19: David Cameron, June 5th 2010: "You have to address the massive welfare bills.....” Yet average welfare spending as a % of GDP was 10.4% in the years 1979-1997 compared to 6.4% in the years 1997-2010. In 1997 welfare spending as a % of GDP, 1997 was 7.8%. In 2010 it was 7.1% (www.ukpublicspending.co.uk).


Lie 20: George Osborne, 20th October, 2010: "Today is the day when Britain steps back from the brink, when we confront the bills from a decade of debt.” Yet national debt was lower as a proportion of GDP at the start of the financial crisis in 2008 (36%) than in 1997, the last year of John Major’s government. (42%), and in 2010 the UK’s national debt as a proportion of GDP (52%) was the second lowest of the G7 countries (www.ukpublicspending.co.uk).


But it is not surprising that the Tories did not make their intentions clear before the election since, had they done so, the 2010 Conservative Party Manifesto would have replaced Michael Foot’s 1983 document as “the longest suicide note in history”.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/25/london-march-for-alternative

Ignore the sneers. This march is a real alarm-clock moment

by Polly Toynbee

There is an alternative to the brutal cuts agenda, and thousands of people from all walks of life will demonstrate that in London

Brother J is very sniffy about bloggers and CiF commenters, and of course there are 10 crap comments (and I dare say 10 crap blogs) to every worthwhile one, but I still say it's better for us all to try at least to make some kind of contribution to ongoing debates and arguments than just keep schtum because we can't be bothered or because we think our own little voice isn't important. After all, nobody is forced to read what we have to say.   


.......................................................

Channel 4 this week screened the TV premier of "Waltz With Bashir".

Oxzen wrote about it in 2008, in Layer 38: Licence To Kill

Do soldiers have a license to kill?


“Waltz With Bashir” is “a daring new animated documentary that follows Israeli director Ari Folman as he tries to piece together memories of the 1982 massacre of Palestinians in Beirut's Sabra and Shatila refugee camps“.


It’s in competition at the Cannes Film Festival. Folman was on the radio this morning explaining how he intends to do everything he can to persuade his sons never to take part in any violence whatsoever, regardless of any demands that the State or the Army may make of them. He wants his work to persuade everyone that violence can never be a solution to conflict.


“Folman was a soldier in the Israeli army when it invaded Lebanon earlier that year. It allowed Christian militiamen into the refugee camps and stood by as they went on a killing spree shortly after the assassination of their leader, Bashir Gemayel.”


Well there’s still hope for the Middle East, and for the world, when artists like Folman are able to release powerful films that highlight State and military atrocities, and make the case for shunning violent solutions to problems in all circumstances.

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2008/05/layer-38-license-to-kill.html

Oh Well . . .

At least we seem to be making progress when the United Nations is able to pass an unopposed resolution to try to prevent Gadhaffi slaughtering those sections of his population who have rebelled against his dictatorship, just as it was progress when the Egyptian army resolved NOT to take any aggressive action against the brave people who came out and demanded that Mubarak should resign.

.........................................

Thinking about our own domestic demonstrations, George Monbiot this week wrote this illuminating column on the UK's civil liberties legislation -

Free to protest? I can still be arrested if my placard reads: 'Nick Clegg, oh dear'

Even Tony Blair's most illiberal measures have survived Clegg's promise to repeal all the laws that inhibit our freedom

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/28/free-protest-clegg-oh-dear

................................................................

Woody Sez

http://www.woodysez.co.uk/

Thanks to Brother P's recent recommendation I managed to catch a wonderful show at the Arts Theatre last night, just ahead of the end of its run this weekend. A fabulous evening  - enjoying  4 talented multi-instrumentalists/vocalists playing and singing the great songs of the sublime Woody Guthrie.

Plenty of seats still available for both remaining evenings, and also the Saturday matinee.

"It stirringly captures the rebellious spirit of Guthrie's times, and of our own, too."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jan/19/woody-sez-review

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/review-23918576-woody-sez-is-a-a-true-folk-hero.do

http://www.whatsonstage.com/reviews/theatre/london/E8831295439330/Woody+Sez+.html

Layer 377 . . . Protests, Political Activism, Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan

Take a look at Dylan's amazing poem - "Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie":

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2010/11/layer-377-protests-political-activism.html

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/07/layer-177-bruce-pete-seeger-tom-joad.html

More on Woody:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Guthrie

.

Layer 449 . . . Dignity, Justice, Human Rights, Protests and Peaceful Revolutions

.
One of the Egyptian protesters said, "This is not just a revolt to topple the regime. This is a revolt for our dignity and for justice."

Meanwhile, on TV yesterday, a reporter said, "Outside Tripoli he (Gaddafi) has no control whatsoever."

When people start to demand the right to some dignity and social justice, then it becomes more unlikely they will replace one set of ruling bastards with another set that's pretty similar, as has happened in Britain. If people have overcome apathy and fear, and come out on the streets to demand the right to be the rulers and not the ruled, they have reached a different level of consciousness. Awakening a higher level of consciousness is like letting a genie out of a bottle. What sort of trickery (or power) might be required to persuade it to go back in the bottle?

This past month has been amazing. Last weekend the Gaddafi regime lost control of all areas of Libya apart from the capital city. What's it going to take to put that genie back in its bottle? Incredible. At the same time the regime in Bahrain, of all places, was forced to withdraw from the central square and allow the protestors to occupy it. It was also a symbol of what's now happening that the regime was also forced to cancel its forthcoming Grand Prix - a lucrative part of the biggest capitalist circus on the planet, the benefits of which reach NONE of the Bahraini people, except maybe a handful employed at the racing circuit on minimum wages.

The previous weekend had seen the beginning of the challenge to the regime in Algeria.

The weekend before that we saw, of course, the downfall of Mubarak in Egypt.

From protest to revolution

Anger at inequality isn't confined to Tunisia or Egypt - where uprisings give a blueprint for other nations.

by Dan Hind

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112131580638716.html#

The popular uprising in Egypt is still less than three weeks old. We still cannot know how it will end - whether the ruling party will make some concessions and cling on to power within a new government - or whether a united opposition will sweep away Mubarak's apparatus. And we cannot tell what kind of regime will emerge.

The revolutions that overthrew the Soviet system in Central and Eastern Europe did not always empower the dissidents who risked the most in the struggle for freedom. Former secret policemen and their allies in organised crime often proved more adept in the years that followed than the idealists they once tormented.

But for all the uncertainty, Egypt has already shaken the region and the world. For those watching in Europe and the US, it has put an end to any lazy notion that the alternative to corrupt dictatorship in the Middle East is chaos or Islamic extremism. The worldly realists, with their regretful talk of the need for moderation, now stand exposed as power-worshipping fantasists. The Christians and Muslims crying "one hand, one hand", as they call for an end to Mubarak's tyranny have made a farce of decades of Western commentary and analysis.

Standing as one

The regime itself did all it could to encourage sectarian tension in the country, while its supporters in the West pretended it was a bulwark against religious violence. But, despite all the efforts to destroy civil society through torture and the organised suspicion of a police state, people have found each other.

Millions are being transformed by the experience of a public life without fear. In the words of one of the protestors, Wael Gawdat: "At Tahrir Square you see different Egyptians from the ones you see on the subway or the bus. No fights and no discomfort from the crowded setting. In short, Egypt is more beautiful in Tahrir Square."

The decision of the Egyptian people to take responsibility for their future - their decision to become citizens - enlivens, even delights. This is a movement that isn't being orchestrated by leaders in the way we have been led to expect. People are acting as though they are free and so becoming free. 

The Egyptians, like the Tunisians - like people all over the world - want a share in the vast wealth that their rulers and a handful of insiders have hoarded for themselves. They want dignity and a life they can call their own. For the moment they are not afraid and they are united. They are showing us the truth of David Hume’s remark that our rulers 'have nothing to support them but opinion'. The Egyptian people no longer believed the Mubarak regime was as good as any other that might be established. They have seen for themselves that there can be stability without torture.

Rejecting injustice

They do not believe that the distribution of property is just and they do not accept the legitimacy of their government. They have changed their opinion of what is possible and right. Every day of freedom they enjoy is a message to the rest of us; things do not have to be as they are.
So the Egyptians and the Tunisians have swept away the prejudices that have so long confused and corrupted the understanding of people in the West. More than that, they have also reminded Europeans and American what political action can achieve - and what it feels like to be free.

We have long been entranced by the idea that shopping and voting once every four years for one wing or other of the pro-business party would be enough to give us the good life. Vast public relations campaigns fostered the sense that a better future could be had, if only we chose wisely from the list of approved candidates. All the while the rich have taken more and left the rest of us to struggle with insecurity, anxiety and mounting debts. The people in Cairo didn't look to charismatic politicians or party machines to do the work for them. They moved faster than their leaders.

You can do it, too

In the West, there have been stirrings of dissent as the scale of the economic crisis becomes apparent and the reassurances of the mainstream media - that good times are just around the corner, come to sound ever more threadbare. Students, and young people in particular, have already shaken off the wishful passivity of the previous generation. But for the most part the outrage and sense of betrayal have expressed themselves in ways that pose no real threat to the governing establishment or the opulent minority who control it.

The Tea Party in the United States and Conservatives in Britain promise change while working to ensure that everything that matters stays the same. The right in both countries has benefited from the failure of their centrist opponents to address the fundamental causes of recession, unemployment and social breakdown. It is as though the entire political establishment has adopted the stultifying uniformity of a one-party state. There is a bankruptcy of policy and of principle that will, perhaps, finally compel us to take matters into our own hands.

In the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama never tired of telling voters they were the change they had been looking for. The people of Tunisia and Egypt have turned a clever slogan into an undeniable fact. They did not wait for permission to take action. If we want another world we must all learn from them.

Can we look beyond the stereotypes offered by our media, and see that the Egyptians and the Tunisians are now daring us to be free?

Yes, we can.

Dan Hind has worked in publishing since 1998 and is the author of two well-acclaimed books: The Return of the Public and The Threat to Reason. He is also a regular contributor to The Guardian.

Follow him on Twitter: @danhind

....................................................


Al-Jazeera:

Social networks, social revolution 


Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have become the new weapons of mass mobilisation.


http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/empire/2011/02/201121614532116986.html


Information is power, but 21st century technology has unleashed an information revolution, and now the genie is out of the bottle.


Youtube, Facebook and Twitter have become the new weapons of mass mobilisation; geeks have taken on dictators; bloggers are dissidents; and social networks have become rallying forces for social justice.


As people around the world challenge authorities, from Iran to Tunisia, Egypt to Yemen, entire societies are being transformed as ordinary citizens see the difference, imagine the alternative, and come together to organise for a better future.


So, are social networks triggering social revolution? And where will the next domino fall?


...................................

Reflections: Egypt Revolution


Egypt's Uprising is only the first in many steps,the challenge ahead is to build a society on fair principles.


http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201121414422998168.html

........................................

What makes a revolution succeed?


While the aspirations are different, Egyptians could take five lessons from Iran's 1979 revolt.


http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201121393446561799.html


On February 12, 32 years this week, Iran proclaimed its revolution a success: the Shah was gone, the military had been decimated, and a new era could dawn.


Although what followed turned out very differently than what the Egyptians are hoping for, Iran's was one of the great revolutions of the 20th century, and Egyptians might well look to it for inspiration in their effort to oust an entrenched regime and gain new rights.


Today, the Egyptian military has assumed command, with promises of free and fair elections. Does this mean the demonstrators can go home and trust their army? Egypt and Iran are very different, their aspirations and media eons apart, and, one hopes, the future the Egyptians construct will be more democratic and safe for those reaching for popular victory.


Nonetheless, for those along the Nile facing quickly changing events, the Iranian revolution offers some useful lessons.


Lesson one: Revolutions take time

.......................................

Egypt's revolution has just begun


The transition to civilian rule will not be easy - if the military are capable of delivering on their promises.


http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011213134458448460.html


"Whatever happens, nothing will ever be the same again" – Tahrir Square demonstrator.


Mubarak has fallen. February 11, 2011, has inscribed itself on the page of world history. Now the struggle for the 'heart and soul' of the revolution begins. It's a testing time, and all will be tested.


Test 1: Procedural and institutional change – the establishment of legality


At what point will the uprising be sufficiently secure from counter-revolution to begin construction of a truly transformed democratic polity? What are the minimum security requirements for its immediate defence and subsequent extension? What structural changes will have to be demanded - and fought through to a successful conclusion – in order to neutralise and dis-articulate the still formidable powers of the Mubarak state and its - temporarily silenced - backers?


Test 2: The shape and boundaries of revolutionary democracy – the contours of freedom and the struggles surrounding inclusive or exclusive participation 


How will the emergent revolution realise itself, consecrate itself? What shall be its core tasks, boundaries and limits? Who is to be included, who excluded? And on what basis, what grounds?
.

Layer 442 . . . What Egypt Faces Today

.

Egypt: The army's fateful choice

The president's obstinacy puts the military on the spot at a time when the power of the people has spilled across the country's political landscape

Guardian Editorial

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/11/egypt-hosni-mubarak

President Mubarak last night laid a powder trail that could explode today in the disastrous confrontation between the army and the people which Egypt has managed to avoid until now. The military now faces an enormous dilemma. President Mubarak's brief and mumbling reference to handing over some powers to his vice-president last night will satisfy nobody. Will the army now attempt, on the back of suppressive action in the streets, to shape a new version of the Nasserist state, or will the demonstrators shouting "We want a civilian government" in Tahrir Square prevail?

The president's obstinacy puts the army on the spot at a time when the power of the people, like the Nile flooding its banks, has spilled across Egypt's political landscape in a torrent hardly imaginable only a few weeks ago. As the waters recede a new Egypt will be revealed, but still nobody knows how much of the old will remain and how much of the new will persist. What is clear is that the army must move swiftly to demonstrate that they are in charge and that Mubarak is now an irrelevance if a violent deterioration of the situation is not to take hold.

In effect the soldiers have to decide whether Egypt is revisiting 1952, to create a supposedly better version of the hybrid military-civilian state that was set up by the Free Officers, or going back to the revolution of 1919, to renew the British-style parliamentary democracy that was created after that upheaval. It is a momentous decision.

Egypt is split between an older generation of leaders, including some in the established opposition, most of whom appear mystified by what has happened, and a younger generation, who have been propelled by events into the political frontline. Many of these newcomers may be as confused as their elders. If the older generation have shown themselves reluctant to cede power, the younger generation is unprepared to exercise it. But that is the way things are when the impulses for change have been dammed up for so long.

The most notable thing about the situation in Egypt is the absence of strong leaders on all sides. The barons of the army and the ruling party are elderly, and compromised by their complicity in the oppressive system they have served. On the opposition side, both the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Badi, and the secular lawyer Mohamed ElBaradei are also old, and they have been followers of the revolution rather than leaders. Then there are the young men and women in their 20s and 30s whom we barely yet know, except for a couple of figures like Wael Ghonim.

Egypt has not had such a youthful renewal since the original Free Officers' revolution in 1952 brought majors and captains to power. Gamal Abdel Nasser was 34 at that time. The styling of yesterday's military announcement as "Communique No 1" suggests a conscious harking back to the early days. But this is not the army of 1952, when those majors and captains gathered great popular support for their own political project.

This army has a very different duty before it now, indeed one that should be staring it in the face. Confusion on both sides, the gap between the generations, and the mixture of elation, anxiety and now fear which characterise Egypt mean that Omar Suleiman was right to speak of the need for a road map, but the correct one is not the regime-friendly path he was pushing last night as he called for the protesters to leave the streets and return to work.

The military needs to isolate Mubarak and help install a national unity government which has representatives of every group and class, including some military officers, but not dominated by them. In the end the army needs to move out of politics. But before then it has the choice between facilitating change or blocking it, with possibly bloody results. Like the rest of Egypt, the army must break with the past.

............................................................

 http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112611181593381.html 

The shaping of a New World Order

If the revolutions of 2011 succeed, they will force the creation of a very different regional and world system.

by Mark LeVine

[This is an abridged version of this article.]

The following description, I believe, sums up what Egypt faces today as well as, if not better, than most:

"It is not a revolution, not in the literal sense of the term, not a way of standing up and straightening things out. It is the insurrection of men with bare hands who want to lift the fearful weight, the weight of the entire world order that bears down on each of us - but more specifically on them, these ... workers and peasants at the frontiers of empires. It is perhaps the first great insurrection against global systems, the form of revolt that is the most modern and the most insane.

One can understand the difficulties facing the politicians. They outline solutions, which are easier to find than people say ... All of them are based on the elimination of the [president].

What is it that the people want? Do they really want nothing more? Everybody is quite aware that they want something completely different. This is why the politicians hesitate to offer them simply that, which is why the situation is at an impasse. Indeed, what place can be given, within the calculations of politics, to such a movement, to a movement through which blows the breath of a religion that speaks less of the hereafter than of the transfiguration of this world?"

The thing is, it was offered not by some astute commentator of the current moment, but rather by the legendary French philosopher Michel Foucault, after his return from Iran, where he witnessed firsthand the intensity of the revolution which, in late 1978, before Khomeini's return, really did seem to herald the dawn of a new era.

Foucault was roundly criticised by many people after Khomeini hijacked the revolution for not seeing the writing on the wall. But the reality was that, in those heady days where the shackles of oppression were literally being shattered, the writing was not on the wall.

Foucault understood that it was precisely a form of "insanity" that was necessary to risk everything for freedom, not just against one's government, but against the global system that has nuzzled him in its bosom for so long.

....................................

This is a radically different image of Islam than most people - in the Muslim world as much as in the West - are used to seeing: Islam taking on state violence through militant peaceful protest; peaceful jihad (although it is one that has occurred innumerable times around the Muslim world, just at a smaller scale and without the world's press there to capture it).

Such imagery, and its significance, is a natural extension of the symbolism of Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation, an act of jihad that profoundly challenges the extroverted violence of the jihadis and militants who for decades, and especially since 9/11, have dominated the public perception of Islam as a form of political spirituality.

Needless to say, the latest images - of civil war inside Tahrir Square - will immediately displace these other images. Moreover, if the violence continues and some Egyptian protesters lose their discipline and start engaging in their own premeditated violence against the regime and its many tentacles, there is little doubt their doing so will be offered as "proof" that the protests are both violent and organised by the Muslim Brotherhood or other "Islamists".

A greater threat than al-Qa'eda

As this dynamic of nonviolent resistance against entrenched regime violence plays out, it is worth noting that so far, Osama bin Laden and his Egyptian deputy, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, have had little - if anything - of substance to say about the revolution in Egypt. What they've failed to ignite with an ideology of a return to a mythical and pure beginning - and a strategy of human bombs, IEDs, and planes turned into missiles - a disciplined, forward-thinking yet amorphous group of young activists and their more experienced comrades, "secular" and "religious" together (to the extent these terms are even relevant anymore), have succeeded in setting a fire with a universal discourse of freedom, democracy and human values - and a strategy of increasingly calibrated chaos aimed at uprooting one of the world's longest serving dictators.

As one chant in Egypt put it succinctly, playing on the longstanding chants of Islamists that "Islam is the solution", with protesters shouting: "Tunisia is the solution."

For those who don't understand why President Obama and his European allies are having such a hard time siding with Egypt's forces of democracy, the reason is that the amalgam of social and political forces behind the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt today - and who knows where tomorrow - actually constitute a far greater threat to the "global system" al-Qa'eda has pledged to destroy than the jihadis roaming the badlands of Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen.

Mad as hell

Whether Islamist or secularist, any government of "of the people" will turn against the neoliberal economic policies that have enriched regional elites while forcing half or more of the population to live below the $2 per day poverty line. They will refuse to follow the US or Europe's lead in the war on terror if it means the continued large scale presence of foreign troops on the region's soil. They will no longer turn a blind eye, or even support, Israel's occupation and siege across the Occupied Palestinian territories. They will most likely shirk from spending a huge percentage of their national income on bloated militaries and weapons systems that serve to enrich western defence companies and prop up autocratic governments, rather than bringing stability and peace to their countries - and the region as a whole.

They will seek, as China, India and other emerging powers have done, to move the centre of global economic gravity towards their region, whose educated and cheap work forces will further challenge the more expensive but equally stressed workforces of Europe and the United States.

In short, if the revolutions of 2011 succeed, they will force the creation of a very different regional and world system than the one that has dominated the global political economy for decades, especially since the fall of communism.

This system could bring the peace and relative equality that has so long been missing globally - but it will do so in good measure by further eroding the position of the United States and other "developed" or "mature" economies. If Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel and their colleagues don't figure out a way to live with this scenario, while supporting the political and human rights of the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa, they will wind up with an adversary far more cunning and powerful than al-Qa'eda could ever hope to be: more than 300 million newly empowered Arabs who are mad as hell and are not going to take it any more.

Mark LeVine is a professor of history at UC Irvine and senior visiting researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden. His most recent books are Heavy Metal Islam (Random House) and Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books).

.................................................

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201126142032991448.html

My revolution betrayed

After revolutions, counter-revolutions may follow. But how can the spirit of an uprising be kept up as the years pass?

by Yuliya Tymoschenko

From snowy Kiev, I have watched the revolutions in Cairo and Tunis with joy and admiration. Egyptians and Tunisians are right to be proud of their desire to peacefully overthrow despotic governments. But, as someone who led a peaceful revolution, I hope that their pride is tempered by pragmatism - because a change of regime is only the first step in establishing a democracy backed by the rule of law. Indeed, as my country, Ukraine, is now demonstrating, after revolutionary euphoria fades and normality returns, democratic revolutions can be betrayed and reversed.

The first of Ukraine’s lessons for Egyptian and Tunisian democrats is that elections do not a democracy make. After all, what if the enemies of freedom use elections to entrench their anti-democratic agendas? What if elements of the old regime, or the cadres of militant minorities, only pretend to embrace democratic norms in order to hijack the new democracy?

In Ukraine today, these are not abstract questions. Six years after our Orange Revolution, not only is my country’s democracy under threat - but the rule of law is being systematically perverted and our national independence bartered away. Indeed, the hybrid presidential/parliamentary system that Ukraine established as part of the settlement which brought a peaceful end to our revolution is being hollowed out in order to concentrate all political power in the hands of a supposedly democratically elected president.

Of course, Ukraine’s plight does not mean that the people of Egypt and Tunisia should spurn the call for free elections. Determining the will of the people does require expression through the ballot box. But elections alone cannot solve the fundamental political problems confronting Egypt and Tunisia. In particular, they cannot create a liberal order and open society.

To be effective, elections must be preceded by an extensive debate, in which political arguments are made, attacked, defended - and, ultimately, embodied in ideologically coherent party organisations. Democratic consent can truly be given only when voters know what they are consenting to. Whoever refuses to make a public case for what he or she intends to do when in power, or lies about it – as Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovich, did during his campaign against me last year – is no supporter of the democracy that citizens risked their lives to establish.

Yuliya Tymoshenko was prime minister of Ukraine and is now leader of the opposition.

This article was first published by Project Syndicate.

....................................................

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html

Suleiman: The CIA's man in Cairo

Suleiman, a friend to the US and reported torturer, has long been touted as a presidential successor.

by Lisa Hajjar

On January 29, Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s top spy chief, was anointed vice president by tottering dictator, Hosni Mubarak. By appointing Suleiman, part of a shake-up of the cabinet in an attempt to appease the masses of protesters and retain  his own grip on the presidency, Mubarak has once again shown his knack for devilish shrewdness. Suleiman has long been favoured by the US government for his ardent anti-Islamism, his willingness to talk and act tough on Iran - and he has long been the CIA’s main man in Cairo.

Mubarak knew that Suleiman would command an instant lobby of supporters at Langley and among 'Iran nexters' in Washington - not to mention among other authoritarian mukhabarat-dependent regimes in the region. Suleiman is a favourite of Israel too; he held the Israel dossier and directed Egypt’s efforts to crush Hamas by demolishing the tunnels that have functioned as a smuggling conduit for both weapons and foodstuffs into Gaza.

According to a WikiLeak(ed) US diplomatic cable, titled 'Presidential Succession in Egypt', dated May 14, 2007:

    "Egyptian intelligence chief and Mubarak consigliere, in past years Soliman was often cited as likely to be named to the long-vacant vice-presidential post. In the past two years, Soliman has stepped out of the shadows, and allowed himself to be photographed, and his meetings with foreign leaders reported. Many of our contacts believe that Soliman, because of his military background, would at least have to figure in any succession scenario."

From 1993 until Saturday, Suleiman was chief of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service. He remained largely in the shadows until 2001, when he started taking over powerful dossiers in the foreign ministry; he has since become a public figure, as the WikiLeak document attests. In 2009, he was touted by the London Telegraph and Foreign Policy as the most powerful spook in the region, topping even the head of Mossad.

In the mid-1990s, Suleiman worked closely with the Clinton administration in devising and implementing its rendition program; back then, rendition involved kidnapping suspected terrorists and transferring them to a third country for trial. In The Dark Side, Jane Mayer describes how the rendition program began:

    "Each rendition was authorised at the very top levels of both governments [the US and Egypt] ... The long-serving chief of the Egyptian central intelligence agency, Omar Suleiman, negotiated directly with top [CIA] officials. [Former US Ambassador to Egypt Edward] Walker described the Egyptian counterpart, Suleiman, as 'very bright, very realistic', adding that he was cognisant that there was a downside to 'some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way'. (p. 113).

    "Technically, US law required the CIA to seek 'assurances' from Egypt that rendered suspects wouldn't face torture. But under Suleiman's reign at the EGIS, such assurances were considered close to worthless. As Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer [head of the al-Qaeda desk], who helped set up the practise of rendition, later testified, even if such 'assurances' were written in indelible ink, 'they weren't worth a bucket of warm spit'."

Under the Bush administration, in the context of "the global war on terror", US renditions became "extraordinary", meaning the objective of kidnapping and extra-legal transfer was no longer to bring a suspect to trial - but rather for interrogation to seek actionable intelligence. The extraordinary rendition program landed some people in CIA black sites - and others were turned over for torture-by-proxy to other regimes. Egypt figured large as a torture destination of choice, as did Suleiman as Egypt’s torturer-in-chief. At least one person extraordinarily rendered by the CIA to Egypt — Egyptian-born Australian citizen Mamdouh Habib — was reportedly tortured by Suleiman himself.

Suleiman the torturer

In October 2001, Habib was seized from a bus by Pakistani security forces. While detained in Pakistan, at the behest of American agents, he was suspended from a hook and electrocuted repeatedly. He was then turned over to the CIA, and in the process of transporting him to Egypt he endured the usual treatment: his clothes were cut off, a suppository was stuffed in his anus, he was put into a diaper - and 'wrapped up like a spring roll'.

In Egypt, as Habib recounts in his memoir, My Story: The Tale of a Terrorist Who Wasn’t, he was repeatedly subjected to electric shocks, immersed in water up to his nostrils and beaten. His fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks. At one point, his interrogator slapped him so hard that his blindfold was dislodged, revealing the identity of his tormentor: Suleiman.

Lisa Hajjar teaches sociology at the University of California - Santa Barbara and is a co-editor of Jadaliyya.

This article first appeared on Jadaliyya.

.

Layer 440 . . . Policing the Protests, Egypt, Tax Laws, The City, Funding the Tories, and Treasure Islands

.
It's been pointed out to me that yesterday's posting was somewhat angry in tone. And here's me thinking how calm and moderate I'm remaining in the face of diabolical goings-on in the world!

On the radio this morning there have been reports of warnings by police spokesmen about the readiness of the police to respond to protests and demonstrations. Well, we all saw how the police responded in Egypt. Not very helpful, was it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12400690

Warning over policing of protests

Police have been urged to adapt more quickly to the changing nature of protests in the UK.

"The service has a clear commitment to ensure peaceful protest can take place and balance the rights of everyone involved whether taking part in protest or going about their daily business."

On the other hand the response of the Egyptian army has been a model of how an army ought to respond to civil uprising. They're a presence on the streets, overseeing the peaceful demonstrations but not interfering with people's right to peacefully demonstrate. They are ready to respond to violence and destruction, but they are clearly neutral and not instigating or provoking any violence and fighting. They're certainly not seen to be taking sides with Mubarak and his cronies.

...........................

In response to yesterday's blog question about why people can't see what's happened to our materialistic, spiritually impoverished and corrupt society, I had this feedback -

"Why doesn't everyone get it?"

"Because there have been decades of indoctrination and many, including myself, have been brainwashed into believing there was only ONE way."

Ah yes - Thatcher's famous dictum - There Is No Alternative.

The issue of indoctrination and brainwashing brings me back to Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", and the fact that this book really MUST be read by everyone who wishes to call themselves educated, enlightened and aware. It's a work of pure genius for giving a comprehensive and comprehensible overview of the past decades of brainwashing and neo-imperialist indoctrination, privatisation, globalisation and colonisation.

.....................................

Yesterday George Monbiot published another of his excellent columns in the Guardian:

To us, it's an obscure shift of tax law. To the City, it's the heist of the century

In David Cameron we have a leader whose job is to quietly legitimise a semi-criminal, money-laundering economy

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century

'I would love to see tax reductions," David Cameron told the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend, "but when you're borrowing 11% of your GDP, it's not possible to make significant net tax cuts. It just isn't." Oh no? Then how come he's planning the biggest and crudest corporate tax cut in living memory?

If you've heard nothing of it, you're in good company. The obscure adjustments the government is planning to the tax acts of 1988 and 2009 have been missed by almost everyone – and are, anyway, almost impossible to understand without expert help. But as soon as you grasp the implications, you realise that a kind of corporate coup d'etat is taking place.

Like the dismantling of the NHS and the sale of public forests, no one voted for this measure, as it wasn't in the manifestos. While Cameron insists that he occupies the centre ground of British politics, that he shares our burdens and feels our pain, he has quietly been plotting with banks and businesses to engineer the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor and middle to the ultra-rich that this country has seen in a century.

Here's how it works.

At the moment tax law ensures that companies based here, with branches in other countries, don't get taxed twice on the same money. They have to pay only the difference between our rate and that of the other country.

 If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia, then shifts the money over here, it should pay a further 18% in the UK, to match our rate of 28%.

But under the new proposals, companies will pay nothing at all in this country on money made by their foreign branches.

Foreign means anywhere. If these proposals go ahead, the UK will be only the second country in the world to allow money that has passed through tax havens to remain untaxed when it gets here. The other is Switzerland. The exemption applies solely to "large and medium companies": it is not available for smaller firms. The government says it expects "large financial services companies to make the greatest use of the exemption regime". The main beneficiaries, in other words, will be the banks.

But that's not the end of it. While big business will be exempt from tax on its foreign branch earnings, it will, amazingly, still be able to claim the expense of funding its foreign branches against tax it pays in the UK. No other country does this. The new measures will, as we already know, accompany a rapid reduction in the official rate of corporation tax: from 28% to 24% by 2014. This, a Treasury minister has boasted, will be the lowest rate "of any major western economy". By the time this government is done, we'll be lucky if the banks and corporations pay anything at all. In the Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron said: "What I want is tax revenue from the banks into the exchequer, so we can help rebuild this economy." He's doing just the opposite.

These measures will drain not only wealth but also jobs from the UK. The new legislation will create a powerful incentive to shift business out of this country and into nations with lower corporate tax rates. Any UK business that doesn't outsource its staff or funnel its earnings through a tax haven will find itself with an extra competitive disadvantage. The new rules also threaten to degrade the tax base everywhere, as companies with headquarters in other countries will demand similar measures from their own governments.

So how did this happen? You don't have to look far to find out. Almost all the members of the seven committees the government set up "to provide strategic oversight of the development of corporate tax policy" are corporate executives. Among them are representatives of Vodafone, Tesco, BP, British American Tobacco and several of the major banks: HSBC, Santander, Standard Chartered, Citigroup, Schroders, RBS and Barclays.

I used to think of such processes as regulatory capture: government agencies being taken over by the companies they were supposed to restrain. But I've just read Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands – perhaps the most important book published in the UK so far this year – and now I'm not so sure. Shaxson shows how the world's tax havens have not, as the OECD claims, been eliminated, but legitimised; how the City of London is itself a giant tax haven, which passes much of its business through its subsidiary havens in British dependencies, overseas territories and former colonies; how its operations mesh with and are often indistinguishable from the laundering of the proceeds of crime; and how the Corporation of the City of London in effect dictates to the government, while remaining exempt from democratic control. If Hosni Mubarak has passed his alleged $70bn through British banks, the Egyptians won't see a piastre of it.

Reading Treasure Islands, I have realised that injustice of the kind described in this column is no perversion of the system; it is the system. Tony Blair came to power after assuring the City of his benign intentions. He then deregulated it and cut its taxes. Cameron didn't have to assure it of anything: his party exists to turn its demands into public policy. Our ministers are not public servants. They work for the people who fund their parties, run the banks and own the newspapers, shielding them from their obligations to society, insulating them from democratic challenge.

Our political system protects and enriches a fantastically wealthy elite, much of whose money is, as a result of their interesting tax and transfer arrangements, in effect stolen from poorer countries, and poorer citizens of their own countries. Ours is a semi-criminal money-laundering economy, legitimised by the pomp of the lord mayor's show and multiple layers of defence in government. Politically irrelevant, economically invisible, the rest of us inhabit the margins of the system. Governments ensure that we are thrown enough scraps to keep us quiet, while the ultra-rich get on with the serious business of looting the global economy and crushing attempts to hold them to account.

And this government? It has learned the lesson that Thatcher never grasped. If you want to turn this country into another Mexico, where the ruling elite wallows in unimaginable, state-facilitated wealth while the rest can go to hell, you don't declare war on society, you don't lambast single mothers or refuse to apologise for Bloody Sunday. You assuage, reassure, conciliate, emote. Then you shaft us.

• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website

........................................

Treasure Islands

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Treasure-Islands-Havens-Stole-World/dp/1847921108

Reviews

"A brilliant expose of tax havens and tax avoidance.Quite topical with all these tory types not paying their fair share but be warned this book is bad for your blood pressure if you are one of the unfortunates who do pay your fair share in taxes. Its frightening how little the rich contribute to the countries they make their money from.Murdoch's companies pay about 6% tax in Britain,which shows what a parasite he is.Every honest tax payer should read this book."

"Shaxson has done everyone a huge favour by blowing away the fog that conceals the structures of our current financial system. Brilliant. - it won't be long before the opposition mobilises as this book is a devastating, relentless and compelling assault on self-interest. At last though we will have a worthy debate and hopefully some practical change."

"Shaxson's book unpicks a sinister entanglement of abuse and advantage over centuries spread throughout the globe and not just in the islands we vaguely understand to be "offshore" I will never visit the City of London again without the nauseated feeling that systems operate beyond the law, democracy and common decency to humiliate every britsh tax-payer but worse to take constant advantage of developing nations. The breadth of his research and interviewing is impressive. However the fear of libel emasculates the name-and-shame opportunities that would give this book the shock horror value, in personality terms, that it really should score from the systemic and metastatic cancer that he tries to excise. "

'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods' (Matthew 22:21) In the developed world, citizens are required to pay tax so that governments can provide hospitals, schools, roads, railways, police, social services, etc; etc. I believe that in a civilised country, income tax is the fairest way of re-distributing wealth, with the wealthiest paying the most tax and the poorest, the least. Society / Government has a moral duty to care for its' weakest members and spend money for the 'common good' Of course in America, with its' "frontier / survival of the fittest / winner takes all / free for all" mentality one can't expect civilised behaviour, and unfortunately, as this book reveals, they have spread their amoral ideas of how society should function, far and wide. Worldwide, the number of people using tax havens to hide and increase their wealth must be miniscule as a proportion of the global population, yet as this book demonstrates their malign influence affects us all - to our detriment.

"Nicholas Shaxon has written an excellent, well referenced , substantive book on how the money system works. Governments collude with financiers, and business interests, to make and take easy options for the benefit of the wealthy. The book is truly a revelation, and does much to explain how the sub prime crisis in the US morphed inexorably as institutions wrapped their packages in ever more complex instruments, built on an avalanche of cheap money. Shocking, un-putdownable, a brilliant piece of writing. Every Economics student should read this book. It should be mandatory for all Bankers and Financial Investment people to read and understand the immorality of their profession. "

...........................................

Revealed: 50% of Tory funds come from City

Donations from the financial sector have risen steeply since David Cameron became leader of the Conservative party

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/tory-funds-half-city-banks-financial-sector

Financiers in the City of London provided more than 50% of the funding for the Tories last year, new research revealed last night, prompting claims that the party is in thrall to the banks.

A study by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism has found that the City accounted for £11.4m of Tory funding – 50.79% of its total haul – in 2010, a general election year. This compared with £2.7m, or 25% of its funding, in 2005, when David Cameron became party leader.

.....................................................

Bloggers

http://www.chezchiara.com/2011/02/egyptian-blogger-arrested-and-his.html

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/02/ghonim-release-reports/

..................................................

William Hague reveals fears for Middle East peace process

Foreign secretary says uncertainty in Arab world could derail peace and urges Israel to tone down its 'belligerent' language

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/09/middle-east-peace-process-william-hague

The foreign secretary, William Hague, has warned Israel against allowing the Middle East peace process to become a casualty of turmoil in the region, urging it to tone down "belligerent language" over protests in Egypt and other neighbouring states.

Speaking on a visit to the region, Hague told the BBC: "Amidst the opportunity for countries like Tunisia and Egypt, there is a legitimate fear that the Middle East peace process will lose further momentum and be put to one side, and will be a casualty of uncertainty in the region."

The foreign secretary implicitly criticised recent statements by the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in which he warned the country to prepare for "any outcome" and pledged to "reinforce the might of the state of Israel."

Hague told the Times: "This should not be a time for belligerent language. It's a time to inject greater urgency into the Middle East peace process."

.

Layer 408 . . . Winter Solstice, Julian Assange, John Pilger, Education, Spiritual Intelligence, Affluenza, Inequality, and Zen

.
It's the Winter Solstice, and a lunar eclipse. We couldn't see the eclipsed moon this morning, which seemed to be the actual point, really.

..............................................

Julian Assange

Speaking on Radio 4 this morning Mr Assange said,

"Capable, generous people don't create victims; they try to prevent people becoming victims."

Very well said, Mr A.

.....................................

John Pilger has been working hard to support Julian Assange. His new website is here:

http://www.johnpilger.com/

The documentary he produced for television recently is still available here on the itv.com  website:

http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=198443

http://www.itv.com/presscentre/presspacks/johnpilgerthewaryoudontsee/default.html 

Here are some key facts from the programme:

The killing of civilians is a war crime.

In WorldWar 1 just 10% of deaths were civilians.
In World War 2 they were 50%.
In Vietnam they were 80%
In Iraq they were 90%

............................................


This video, on the Guardian website, is well worth watching:

Jody McIntyre: 'What the government are trying to do is to widen the gap between the rich and the poor'

Activist Jody McIntyre on inequality, political process, and the student demonstrations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/dec/20/jody-mcintyre-student-protest

...................................................


Thinking about inequality, Christmas, and Taoist philosophy, I had another look at Layer 74, which focuses on values, affluenza, and education. In particular it suggests we all buy and read Oliver James's book, 'Affluenza'. Will Self said this about it:

“Oliver James is our foremost chronicler of what ails us. Affluenza should be mandatory reading for everyone, but especially those in politics, business and the media who are intent on upping our society’s dosage of toxic affluence”.

Ideal for Christmas presents.


http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2008/09/layer-74-be-strong-education-and.html

.........................................................

Thinking about Assange's statement, above, and the true spirit of Christmas, I think it might be worth thinking again about this passage from Layer 148:

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/04/layer-148-phoenix-hall-tokyo-spiritual.html

I’ve reached the conclusion that in true Zen style it might be easier to describe what spiritual intelligence and enlightenment are NOT, rather than describe what they ARE.

They’re the absence of malice, spite, viciousness, violence, anger and hatred. The absence of racism, sexism, snobbery, elitism and other forms of prejudice and self-aggrandisement.

It’s the absence of greed, envy, jealousy, pettiness and unpleasantness. It’s the absence of exploitation, abuse and other forms of immoral behaviour.

Some of these things can be attributed to a lack of social and emotional intelligences, but through the grace of spiritual intelligence we see the need to work on our current levels of these other intelligences in order to raise them higher.

Through spiritual intelligence we aspire to make ourselves and our world a better place. We aspire to raise levels of wellbeing and enlightenment in ourselves, and crucially to assist in raising them for others, since in order to live well ourselves we need others to also live well.

As the story says, it was impossible for Siddartha to find contentment and happiness when he was aware of the sufferings of others. Through doing what we can to assist others to overcome ignorance, want and suffering we enjoy happiness and wellbeing ourselves as a kind of by-product.

.............................................

And let's keep in mind this is where we're all heading, hopefully:

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2008/04/layer-20-fully-evolved-humans.html
.

Layer 344 . . . Grandma's House, Hendrix, Machine Guns, Politics, Manu Chao, Hugo Chavez and Professor David Harvey

.
Grandma's House

Back on the theme of comedy and laughter I've been meaning to say something about 'Grandma's House', which is now three programmes into its series on BBC2. All three available on iPlayer.

TV presenter Simon Amstell plays a version of himself in Grandma's House, a new six-part comedy written by Simon and his long-term collaborator Dan Swimer.

The series stars Simon Amstell as a TV presenter who is quitting his job to try to do something more meaningful with his life.

Each episode is set at Grandma's house, where Simon's family regularly congregate to catch up. Everything happens under the watchful eye of Grandma, who is desperate to see everything going well.

The show also stars Bafta winner Rebecca Front (The Thick Of It, Nighty Night) who plays Simon's mum, Tanya, a larger-than-life single woman who's looking for love and who dotes on her famous son . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tffgy

It's a kind of middle class version of The Royle Family - with virtually everything taking place in the family sitting room, involving three generations of wildly different characters.

..................................................................

Was Jimi Hendrix 'political'?

There was a programme on Radio 4 yesterday called 'Star Spangled Hendrix':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tg2m0

When Jimi Hendrix returned to his native America as a star, the country he knew had changed. This programme, presented by Tom Robinson to tie in with the 40th anniversary of the guitarist's death, explores the pressure Jimi was under to make an explicit political declaration.

Tom explores Hendrix's 14 months in the Screaming Eagles 101 Airborne Division that saw him parachute a total of 26 times before he was invalided out with a broken ankle.

When Hendrix first came to Britain he'd speak with friends about the need to defeat the Viet-Cong in order to prevent the whole of South-East Asia going Communist. All the standard domino-theory clap-trap he'd picked up from the American media and in his Marine Corps indoctrination. He was no sophisticated student of politics.

On the other hand, by the time he was performing with the Band of Gypsies in 1970 Hendrix was ready to come out on stage and introduce a song called Machine Gun with these words:

"HAPPY NEW YEAR FIRST OF ALL. I HOPE WE'LL HAVE A MILLION OR TWO MILLION
MORE OF THEM... IF WE CAN GET OVER THIS SUMMER, HA HA. RIGHT I'D LIKE
TO DEDICATE THIS ONE TO THE DRAGGIN' SCENE THAT'S GOIN' ON - ALL THE SOLDIERS THAT ARE FIGHTIN' IN CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND NEW YORK... OH YEAH, AND ALL THE SOLDIERS FIGHTIN' IN VIETNAM. LIKE TO DO A THING CALLED 'MACHINE GUN'."


MACHINE GUN
TEARING MY BODY ALL APART

EVIL MAN MAKE ME KILL YA
EVIL MAN MAKE YOU KILL ME
EVIL MAN MAKE ME KILL YOU
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ONLY FAMILIES APART

The final words of this piece are:

YEAH THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T WANNA HEAR ANY MORE, ALRIGHT
NO BULLETS
AT LEAST HERE, HUH HUH
NO GUNS, NO BOMBS
HUH HUH
NO NOTHIN', JUST LET'S ALL LIVE AND LIVE
YOU KNOW INSTEAD OF KILLIN'

And in between those first and last words there's about 12 minutes of very 'political' guitar playing, with Hendrix giving his musical interpretation of urban and jungle warfare as only Hendrix could - clattering and screaming guitar blasting his audience with high-powered sonic bullets, and with musical rockets and bombs - expressing rage, hatred, savagery, pain, fear, terror and madness.

You can hear several versions on YouTube (and Spotify) including
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hipdlGSLYk4&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT4_yXATJNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZANxW4iFnk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NTh07MYqMA&NR=1

What Hendrix was recreating with every live performance was an incredible work of art that took the blues to a level never seen before or since - smashing through the average concert-goer's indifference and apathy and confronting his audience with what it feels like to live with death, destruction, injury, pain and misery - whether in the urban ghettos or in the horrors of VietNam. Not what you'd call pop music, then. Hendrix thankfully never made it to Nam himself, but he knew plenty of people who did. Just imagine what we'd have missed if Hendrix had died fighting the VietCong. And for what?

Wikipedia says this:

It is a lengthy, loosely defined (jam-based) protest of the Vietnam War, and perhaps a broader comment on conflict of any kind. Although a proper studio recording was never released, there are several other live recordings on album, including Jimi Hendrix: Live at Berkeley and Blue Wild Angel: Live at the Isle of Wight. The Band of Gypsys  performance is often lauded as Hendrix's finest, and is widely considered the finest electric guitar performance in the history of recorded music.

The Band of Gypsys  version of "Machine Gun" is roughly 12 minutes long. Hendrix's long guitar solos and percussive riffs combine with controlled feedback to simulate the sounds of a battlefield, such as helicopters, dropping bombs, explosions, machine guns, and the screams and cries of those wounded or grieving. The rather sparse lyrics, which differ in every performance, relate the point of view of a soldier fighting in war.

As with his version of Star Spangled Banner, Hendrix let his guitar, his imagination, his feelings and his emotions do the talking. He painted incredibly vivid pictures with sound, and left the rest to our imagination. Was it political? Isn't everything?

It was also personal, spiritual, emotional, original and sensational. You can't say fairer than that.

..................................................................

Stumbling around on Spotify I noticed that Manu Chao has also recorded a track called Machine Gun, on the Radio Bemba Sound System live album, and also on Baionerena. Manu's a highly 'political' guy.

"After arriving in Madrid, Chao and other band mates from Mano Negra formed a new group, Radio Bemba Sound System (named for the communication system used in the Sierra Maestra by the Castro-and-Guevara-led rebels in the Cuban Revolution), featuring groups from diverse backgrounds, such as Mexican Tijuana No!, Brazilian Skank, and Argentinian Todos Tus Muertos. The goal was to replicate the sound of street music and bar scenes from a variety of cultures; to that end, Chao and the group spent several years travelling throughout South and Central America, recording new music as they went. The resulting music differed drastically from Mano Negra; the songs were primarily sung in Spanish with far fewer French tracks and the musical style had shifted from punk and alternative styles to the street vibe Chao was aiming for. The songs were collectively released as Clandestino in 1998, under Manu Chao's own name. Though not an instant success, the album gained a steady following in France with hits such as "Bongo Bong" and "Clandestino", and the album eventually earned the Best World Music Album award in 1999's Victoires de la Musique awards."  -  Wikipedia

..............................................................

Which reminds me that I finally got round to watching the film made by Steven Soderbergh of Che Guevara's participation in the Cuban revolution - Che - Part 1 - A Revolutionary Life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_%28film%29

Cinematical's James Rocchi described the biopic as "expressive, innovative, striking, and exciting" as well as "bold, beautiful, bleak and brilliant". Rocchi went on to brand it "a work of art" that's "not just the story of a revolutionary" but "a revolution in and of itself". Columnist and critic Jeffrey Wells proclaimed the film "brilliant", "utterly believable", and "the most exciting and far-reaching film of the Cannes Film Festival". In further praise, Wells referred to the film as "politically vibrant and searing" while labeling it a "perfect dream movie".

...................................................

Professor David Harvey

The professor was featured on HARDTalk last week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harvey_%28social_theorist_and_geographer%29

Are we seeing the end of capitalism?

Arun Motianey, director of fixed income strategy at Roubini Global Economics, says the global economy is at risk of collapsing inward unless policy makers address the threat of inflation and exchange rate inflexibility.

For Professor David Harvey, Marxist author of The Enigma of Capital, the collapse of capitalism is inevitable. He tells Sarah Montague that capitalism is amoral, lawless, and it should be overthrown.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8662148.stm

Well done, BBC, for still making programmes like this one. How often do we get to hear the voices of the radical left? Whereas we hear the drivel of the radical right continuously.

Prof Harvey maintains that for the most part modern capitalism has nothing to do with anything productive, and simply makes money out of money. Smart financiers make money out of slightly less smart financiers, as well as out of dumb financiers and bankers - the dumbest being the Royal Bank of Scotland Group and HBoS, I reckon, since they're the ones that ended up in public ownership.

Harvey says our government has been protecting the banks at the expense of the people. There's been no productive use of the money controlled by the banks. There's been no actual investment in production or in real things.

What we need is investment in people's creative capacities and powers. Do rich people really need five mansions or more? What we need, as a society, is zero 'growth' and a significant redistribution of wealth. Through increasing the spending power of the poorer sections of society we'll become a richer society as a whole. Rich people hoard wealth. Poor people keep it in circulation.

There is currently NO political movement for real change from any of the established parties - Harvey is calling for people to think about alternatives. Utopia is simply about continuous change for the benefit of society as a whole, he says, and about creative engagement in political processes. We need diversity not homogeneity.

http://davidharvey.org/2010/05/interview-on-bbcs-hardtalk-are-we-seeing-the-end-of-capitalism/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtyZY9sKv2w
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00scbd2/HARDtalk_David_Harvey_Marxist_Academic/
http://socialistaotearoa.blogspot.com/2010/05/david-harvey-bbc-hardtalk-interview-on.html
http://www.123webtv.com/shows/hardtalk

"Is it time to look beyond capitalism towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that could be responsible, just and humane?"

"Capitalism will never fall on its own. It will have to be pushed. The accumulation of capital will never cease. It will have to be stopped. The capitalist class will never willingly surrender its power. It will have to be dispossessed.” - David Harvey

..................................................................

Here's another HARDtalk worth watching, on Hugo Chavez:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8732857.stm

President Chavez's socialist world vision

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez intends to inject new urgency into his socialist and anti-imperialist revolution, claiming "capitalism is destroying the world".

In a combative 60-minute interview with the BBC HARDtalk programme in the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas, Mr Chavez blamed Venezuela's deepening recession on the irresponsible economic policies of the United States.

He also expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's "very negative signals" towards Latin America.

The 55-year-old Venezuelan president rarely grants extended interviews to the Western media. This one was arranged to coincide with the premiere in Caracas of a new documentary by Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone.

The film, South of the Border, portrays Latin America being transformed by Leftist radicalism.

The leaders of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador all get walk-on parts, but it is to Mr Chavez that Stone gives the starring role.

"What's been going on in Venezuela for the last 10 years is amazing - a piece of history. The least I can do is introduce this man and this movement to the American people," said Stone, with a beaming Chavez by his side.

Whether many Venezuelans will ever see South of the Border remains unclear.

The premiere was full of Socialist party bigwigs and activists who hooted with delight as their president was seen lambasting Bush, beating off a coup attempt in 2002 and generally adopting the mantle of a 21st Century Castro.

In his HARDtalk interview, the president blamed his country's economic woes squarely on America's "rampant, irresponsible capitalism" which was taking the world "on the road to hell".

"In England and in Europe you should know this," Mr Chavez went on. "'You have more problems than we do."

He quoted a stream of economic statistics to illustrate his claim that 11 years of socialism had "begun to redress the balance between a very rich Venezuelan minority and a very poor majority."

He said unemployment had been halved, extreme poverty was down from 25% to just 5%.

"Eleven years ago I was quite gullible," the president said. "I even believed in a 'third way'. I thought it was possible to put a human face on capitalism. But I was wrong.

"The only way to save the world is through socialism, but a socialism that exists within a democracy. There's no dictatorship here."

"Fidel has spent his whole life on his (revolution)," Chavez reflected. "Whatever life I have left I will dedicate to this peaceful democratic revolution in Venezuela."

........................................................

Here's something upbeat to end on - a blistering performance of 'Rainin In Paradise' by Manu Chao:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3oiea_manu-chao-rainin-in-paradise_music

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcxfv5_manu-chao-rainin-in-paradize_music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3272WEgFY0g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtlvykv3xjA&NR=1

Where are the British bands playing with anything like this sort of engagement, commitment and passion? Clearly they don't exist.

In Jerusalem
In Monrovia
Guinea-Bissau

today it's rainin
Welcome to paradise
today it's rainin
Welcome to paradise

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rainin-in-paradize-lyrics-manu-chao.html

 

Politik Kills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH8fwxA1UjE&feature=related

Check out the Politik Kills EP on Spotify, especially the remix with Linton Kwesi Johnson.

politik need votes
politik needs your mind
politik needs human beings
politik need lies

thats what my friend is an evidence politik is violence
what my friend is a evidence politik is violence

politik kills politik kills politik kills
politik kills politik kills politik kills

politik use drugs
politik use bombs
politik need torpedoes
politik needs blood
thats what my friend is an evidence politik is violence
what my friend is a evidence politik is violence

Big shout out to Brother B - the Horn of Africa.
.